Bible Quotation For Today/Look
at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself
Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Saint Luke 24/36-45: "While they were
talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, ‘Peace be
with you.’They were startled and terrified, and thought that they were seeing a
ghost. He said to them, ‘Why are you frightened, and why do doubts arise in your
hearts? Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see;
for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.’And when he
had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While in their joy they
were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, ‘Have you anything here
to eat?’ They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate in their
presence. Then he said to them, ‘These are my words that I spoke to you while I
was still with you that everything written about me in the law of Moses, the
prophets, and the psalms must be fulfilled.’Then he opened their minds to
understand the scriptures,"

Bible Quotation For Today/The
person who does these things will live by them
Letter to the Romans 10/04-12: "For Christ is the end of the law so that there
may be righteousness for everyone who believes. Moses writes concerning the
righteousness that comes from the law, that ‘the person who does these things
will live by them.’ But the righteousness that comes from faith says, ‘Do not
say in your heart, "Who will ascend into heaven?" ’ (that is, to bring Christ
down) ‘or "Who will descend into the abyss?" ’ (that is, to bring Christ up from
the dead). But what does it say? ‘The word is near you, on your lips and in your
heart’ (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because if you confess
with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him
from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is
justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved. The scripture says,
‘No one who believes in him will be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction
between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and is generous to all who
call on him."

Rouhani's Envoy Meets Lebanese
Officials, Says Military Grant Ready if Lebanon Wants It
Naharnet/The special envoy of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Morteza Sarmadi,
announced Wednesday from Beirut that Tehran's proposed military grant to Lebanon
is still on the table, hoping the Lebanese will manage to find an “appropriate
solution” to the presidential crisis. “Now that the nuclear settlement has been
achieved, if the Lebanese side believes that it can now receive the Iranian
military grant to the valiant Lebanese army, we are fully ready to offer this
donation on a silver platter,” said Sarmadi, in response to a reporter's
question. The Iranian official, who arrived in Lebanon earlier in the day, was
speaking after talks with Foreign Minister Jebran Bassil in Ashrafieh.
Discussions over the controversial Iranian grant to the Lebanese army were
reportedly “frozen” in late 2014 to avoid any rift between cabinet members. The
head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, who made a one-day visit to
Beirut in 2014, said that Tehran will provide military assistance to Lebanon.
Iran's offer of support followed aid packages for the Lebanese army from both
its regional rival Saudi Arabia and the United States.
As for the stalled presidential election, Sarmadi hoped Lebanese officials will
be able to find an “appropriate solution” in the coming period. “We're fully
confident that the Lebanese political leaderships, movement and parties have
enough maturity and awareness that qualify them to find the appropriate
solutions to the presidential crisis,” added Sarmadi. He also underlined that
Tehran is “committed to its firm principled stance on noninterference in the
domestic affairs of other countries,” while noting that his country “encourages
the Lebanese to reach this appropriate solution.”Earlier in the day, Sarmadi met
with Speaker Nabih Berri after which he explained that the nuclear agreement
reached last week is aimed at reaching a final one, expected before the end of
June. The talks also addressed regional developments, most notably the conflict
in Yemen.
Sarmadi stressed the need to halt the Saudi-led military operation against
Yemen's Huthi rebels, encouraging the concerned sides to launch dialogue. He
suggested holding dialogue in a neutral location with the participation of all
Yemeni political factions to reach an agreement on a national government.
Sarmadi then headed to the Grand Serail for talks with Prime Minister Tammam
Salam. The Iranian official said after the meeting: “A strategic mistake took
place against Yemen.” “The claim that the airstrikes are aimed at restoring
legitimacy are not based on any international resolution,” he added. The Iranian
official is scheduled to visit the grave of slain top Hizbullah operative Imad
Mughnieh in the evening. An Nahar daily reported that Sarmadi will likely hold a
meeting with party chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah.
Diplomatic Iranian sources told al-Liwaa newspaper Wednesday that “his talks
will not address Lebanese affairs, such as the presidential elections, because
Tehran refuses to interfere in the internal matters of friendly
countries.”Al-Liwaa noted that Lebanon is the fifth stop of a tour Sarmadi is
making to a number of countries, which included Turkey and Germany.

Authorities Mulling to Resort to Costly Transport of Goods
by Sea after Border Crisis
Naharnet/The Lebanese authorities are mulling ways to transport goods by sea
after overland exports to Gulf states stopped last week following a rebel
seizure of the Syrian side of the border with Jordan. At least 30 drivers were
stranded on the Syrian-Jordanian border's free zone area last Wednesday after
they entered the crossing, as a group of rebels, backed by al-Nusra Front,
seized control of it following clashes with government forces. The move prompted
Amman to close the Nasib crossing, which is the only functioning crossing
between Jordan and Syria and is considered a crucial gateway for Syria's
government and for Syrian, Lebanese and Jordanian traders and merchants. Many of
the drivers returned to Lebanon but others remain stranded there. During a
session held under Prime Minister Tammam Salam on Wednesday, the cabinet tasked
Agriculture Minister Akram Shehayyeb with preparing a report on ways to solve
the crisis. Shehayyeb told al-Mustaqbal daily published Thursday that the
government approved in principle to cover the difference in the cost that would
result from transportation by sea. The newspaper also quoted Industry Minister
Hussein al-Hajj Hassan as saying that such a move would cost the government 1-2
million dollars monthly. The issue will be discussed again during a cabinet
session next week after a thorough study to take the appropriate decision, he
said.Al-Joumhouria daily also quoted a cabinet minister as saying that a vessel
named Roro which is a truck carrier could be used to transport the goods via two
lines – from Beirut Port to Jordan's Aqaba Port or from Beirut to Alexandria,
Suez Canal and the Saudi Yanbu Commercial Port.

Riyadh Tells Hizbullah to Mind its Own Business over Yemen
Row
Naharnet/The Saudi Ambassador to Beirut, Ali Awadh Asiri, has urged Hizbullah
without naming it to deal with its own issues rather than meddle in Riyadh's
affairs. The parties that “shove” themselves into the Saudi-led coalition's move
against Huthi rebels in Yemen and which “have the audacity” to criticize Saudi
Arabia “should deal with their own affairs,” Asiri said in remarks published on
Thursday. He hinted that Lebanon has no interest in being pushed in a battle
that has no ties to it. The diplomat warned in reference to Iran that Lebanon
was being used as a mail box to serve regional sides whose sole interest is to
tamper with the security and stability of the region. Asiri told the Saudi Okaz
daily that Riyadh only deals with the Lebanese government headed by Prime
Minister Tammam Salam and its state institutions, which are keen on the best of
ties between the two countries. On Monday, Hizbullah Secretary-General Sayyed
Hassan Nasrallah declared that Saudi Arabia will be defeated in the Yemeni
conflict. “Saudi Arabia will suffer a major defeat that will have an impact on
its domestic situation and the entire region,” he told Syria's al-Ikhbariya in
an interview that was broadcast by Tele Liban. Saudi Arabia began its airstrikes
in Yemen on March 25, announcing that it had put together a coalition of more
than 10 countries, including five Gulf monarchies, for the military operation to
defend Yemeni President Abedrabbo Mansur Hadi's government against the Shiite
Huthi rebels. The military move against the rebels triggered fury from Saudi
Arabia's rival Iran, Hizbullah's main regional ally, with officials in Tehran
warning that the military action threatened to spill over into other countries.
In his remarks to Okaz, Asiri confirmed that Information Minister Ramzi Jreij
telephoned him to apologize for TL's airing of the interview from al-Ikhbariya,
which is backed by Syria's Assad regime.
The minister promised him to hold the employees behind the airing accountable,
said Asiri.

Nasrallah, Iranian envoy discuss nuke
deal, Yemen
The Daily Star/ Apr. 09, 2015 /BEIRUT: Visiting Iranian presidential envoy
Morteza Sarmadi discussed Thursday with Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah
the crisis in Yemen and the recent nuclear deal reached between Iran and the
West. A statement from Hezbollah’s office said the two sides discussed the
“progress of the Iranian nuclear agreement and the results that have been
reached as well as various developments in the region, particularly the
situation in Yemen.” Sarmadi has said that the Saudi-led military campaign
launched two weeks ago against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen was a
“grave strategic mistake.”Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has dispatched
Sarmadi to the region to find political solutions to Middle East conflicts.
Lebanon was the fifth leg of his tour that has also taken him to Oman, Tunisia,
Algeria and Iraq. Sarmadi arrived in Beirut Wednesday on a two day-visit for
talks on Yemen and to brief Lebanese officials on the outcome of last week’s
nuclear deal between Iran and world powers. On Wednesday, Sarmadi met with
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, Prime Minister Tammam Salam and Foreign Minister
Gebran Bassil.

"The Obama Administration is not really defeating Iran in Yemen""
Dr. Walid Phares/Several news agencies, including AP developed an assessment
projecting that Iran and the US "will be clashing because the Ayatollahs are on
the side of the Houthis while Washington has sided with the Saudi-led
coalition." But Dr Walid Phares disagreed with the bulk of the assessment. He
told BBC Arabic: "While it is a fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been
and is fully backing the Houthi-Ansarallah offensive in Yemen, and has been for
years, we are not sure that the Obama Administration is fully on the side of the
Saud-led campaign in Yemen to defeat the pro-Iranian militias." Phares cited
several statements by US Administration officials particularly the following
cited by AP: "A U.S. defense official Anthony Blinken said the U.S. and the
six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council must coordinate closely and press all
parties to seek a political solution."Phares said "it is our assessment that the
Administration is backing the Saudi led coalition to a point, that is to create
a balance of power between the two parties before it attempts to take the
coalition and Iran to the negotiations table. Which means that Washington won't
back the Arab coalition to a victory in Yemen but to a deal, another deal, with
Iran. We could be wrong, but in our assessment, we don't see the elements of a
US strategic support leading to the liberation of all of Yemen and a defeat of
the pro-Iranian militia. It may change, but the Administration overarching deal
with Tehran doesn't allow such confrontations."

Khamenei: US fact sheet on Iran
nuclear deal shows 'devlish' (Satanic) American intentions
By REUTERS, MICHAEL WILNER/J.Post/04/09/2015
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Thursday he neither backed
nor rejected an interim accord with six world powers on Tehran's disputed
nuclear program but demanded all sanctions be lifted immediately once a final
agreement was concluded.
He added in a televised speech that the details of the accord would be decisive,
and the publication of a US fact sheet showing terms that were at variance with
the Iranian view of the agreement showed "devilish" US intentions. "I neither
support nor oppose it," he said. "Everything is in the details; it may be that
the deceptive other side wants to restrict us in the details." The tentative
accord, struck on April 2 after eight days of talks in Switzerland, clears the
way for a settlement to allay Western fears that Iran could build an atomic
bomb, with economic sanctions on Tehran being lifted in return.
"The White House put out a statement just a few hours after our negotiators
finished their talks...this statement, which they called a 'fact sheet', was
wrong on most of the issues." Khameni reiterated Iranian denials that Tehran was
seeking to build a nuclear weapon.
He added: "What has been achieved so far does not guarantee a deal or even that
the negotiations will continue to the end." "I was never optimistic about
negotiating with America... nonetheless I agreed to the negotiations and
supported, and still support, the negotiatiors."
He said he supported a deal that preserved the "interests and honor" of Iran and
that an extension of a June 30 deadline should not matter.
Earlier on Thursday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also said that any final
deal with world powers must include the immediate lifting of all sanctions. "We
will not sign any deal unless all sanctions are lifted on the same day ... We
want a win-win deal for all parties involved in the nuclear talks," Rouhani
said. The world powers and Iran have not yet agreed on the pace of sanctions
relief, a fundamental component of the structure of a nuclear deal. Earlier this
week, the White House said that international sanctions would be lifted only
gradually.
The disagreement between the parties is over how to pair international sanctions
relief for Iran with its demonstrated compliance with an accord. Washington
stipulated that it would accept sanctions being “phased out” only as Tehran
complies with a final agreement to halt its nuclear program.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest said on Monday that the US would not
budge from its position. A phased approach is the only way to incentivize Iran
to comply over the life of the deal, he said, which includes provisions lasting
between 10 and 25 years.
“You can’t start talking about relieving sanctions until we’ve reached
agreements about how we’re going to shut down every pathway they have to a
nuclear weapon,” Earnest told reporters. Under the framework deal with Iran
reached earlier this month, framing the parameters of a larger, more technical
agreement due by June 30, Iran will be allowed to continue the enrichment of
uranium and will close no facilities.

Top Saudi mufti reportedly issues
fatwa allowing starving husbands to eat wives
By JPOST.COM STAFF/04/09/2015/Saudi Arabia's highest religious authority has
issued a fatwa allowing a starving man to eat his wife in order to save himself,
causing a stir among the Kingdom's residents, London-based daily al-Quds al-Arabi
reported. Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, according to the report, said
that the act would display the wife's obedience to her husband and her
willingness to become one with his flesh. Saudi Twitter users quickly took to
the social network to express their shock at the strange fatwa attributed to the
Grand Mufti, al-Quds al-Arabi reported. Following the report Saudi media accused
Iranian media of fabricating the fatwa, noting that the fatwa was not on the
official's website. The Grand Mufti had previously issued controversial fatwas,
such as a decree permitting the marriage of minors under the age of 15. Saudi
Arabia follows the ultra conservative Wahhabi school of Sunni Islam. Last year,
Al-Sheikh came out against ISIS and al-Qaida, saying they were "enemy number one
of Islam" and not in any way part of the faith. "Extremist and militant ideas
and terrorism which spread decay on Earth, destroying human civilization, are
not in any way part of Islam, but are enemy number one of Islam, and Muslims are
their first victims," he said in a statement.
Reuters contributed to this report.

Erdogan: Egypt must free Morsi before
it can restore ties with Turkey
By REUTERS/04/09/2015/ISTANBU - Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said Egypt
should free ousted Islamist president Mohamed Mursi from jail and lift death
sentences against his supporters before Ankara could consider an improvement in
relations with Cairo. Ties between the two former allies have been strained
since then Egyptian army chief Abdel Fattah al-Sisi toppled elected President
Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013 after mass protests against his rule.
Egyptian security forces then mounted one of the fiercest crackdowns against the
Islamist movement, killings hundreds of supporters at a Cairo protest camp,
arresting thousands and putting Morsi and other leaders on trial. "Mr Morsi is a
president elected by 52 percent of the votes. They should give him his freedom,"
Erdogan was quoted by Turkish newspapers as telling reporters traveling on his
plane as he returned from an official visit to Iran. An official from Erdogan's
office confirmed his comments. Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood has close ties with
Turkey's ruling AK Party, which Erdogan co-founded and which has emerged as one
of the fiercest international critics of Morsi's removal, calling it an
"unacceptable coup" by the army. Erdogan's recent visit to Saudi Arabia, and his
support of a Saudi-led military operation against Houthi rebels in Yemen in
which Egyptian warships have taken part, have triggered speculation about a
possible thaw in ties between Ankara and Cairo. Erdogan had more conditions
before that could happen, and reiterated his criticism of Western countries for
not being more vocal about Egypt's treatment of political prisoners.
"Secondly, doesn't the West say it is against the death sentence? There are
3,000 people there sentenced to death. This should be lifted," Erdogan said,
when he was asked if there was any chance of rapprochement in relations with
Cairo. Egyptian courts have sentenced hundreds of alleged Brotherhood supporters
to death in recent months, many in mass trials condemned by foreign governments
and rights groups as violating international law. Erdogan said there were around
18,000 political prisoners who should be retried and bans on political parties
in Egypt, which he says are arbitrary, should be removed. "They say 'Turkey
should not interfere with our domestic affairs'. We are not interfering. If
something happens in a country against freedoms, we should speak up," Erdogan
said. Egypt has complained about previous comments made by Erdogan against Sisi
and rejected Turkey's criticism of the government.

Analysis: Obama finds out that honesty
on Iran deal doesn’t pay
By YOSSI MELMAN/J.Post//04/09/2015
US President Barack Obama tried to put out a fire and ended up further fanning
the flames. He was attempting to defend the framework deal with Iran, but
uttered a sentence that his opponents are now using against him.
Obama, in an attempt to be decent, answered a question honestly and discovered
that, in the world of political spin and manipulation, honesty about a
complicated prospective agreement does not pay.
In answer to a question from his National Public Radio interviewer on Tuesday,
Obama said that once the comprehensive agreement ends, in 13-15 years from now
(which, by the way, is an agreement that has not yet been reached), Iran will be
at “zero” breakout time to build a nuclear weapon.
The president immediately added that this is one of the reasons to seek a deal –
to push Iran away from this possibility for as long as possible, and 10 or more
years is indeed an eternity in the Middle East. According to Obama, US
intelligence estimates hold that Iran today is two-to-three months from the
ability to produce a bomb. The deal with world powers, according to US
intelligence estimates, would keep Iran’s nuclear breakout capability at a
year’s time while it is in effect.
The fear that at the end of such a deal Iran would be closer to a nuclear weapon
stems from one of the clauses that has not been agreed upon and which is the
subject of dispute between Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers. Iran is
demanding to continue research and development of advanced centrifuges that will
enable it to enrich uranium much more quickly and efficiently – and in doing so
to shorten its breakout time to a bomb, if it decides to pursue this path.
The research and development issue is just one aspect upon which the sides
disagree.
Just days after the loud applause for the achievement of the framework deal in
Lausanne, it has become clear that the two sides have different interpretations
of almost every clause. For example, Iran claims that it was promised that
sanctions would immediately be lifted when the deal goes into effect. The US
claims that the sanctions will be removed gradually, as Iran shows that it is
complying with the deal.
The US and its allies speak of intrusive inspection into all of Iran’s nuclear
facilities, whereas Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif was quoted as
saying Tuesday that his country would not allow International Atomic Energy
Agency cameras to be placed at the facilities.
It should be noted that cameras are currently in place at the large enrichment
facility at Natanz, but the P5+1 and the IAEA are requesting that the deal
include more cameras and additional inspection measures, such as cataloging of
equipment at all of the Iranian nuclear facilities, including the underground,
fortified site at Fordow.
These differences are coming to the surface, because both sides are busy trying
to sell the deal to their constituents at home and abroad.
Zarif briefed the Iranian parliament on Tuesday, encountering harsh criticism
from opponents who suggested that Iran caved and conceded too much.
While Zarif and the so-called moderate camp, led by President Hassan Rouhani,
support the deal, the commanders of the Revolutionary Guard toe a harder line.
They don’t have much interest in an agreement that will remove sanctions.
Removal would unburden the Iranian people, but it would also hurt the Guard
commanders’ massive profits from the system of fraud they have in place to
circumvent the sanctions.
Obama and his aides are also engaged in a difficult campaign to sell the deal
with Iran to the US public and also to Israel. Obama must overcome opposition to
the deal in Congress, mainly from Republicans, who are being fueled by Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and their common patron, Sheldon Adelson. It is
unclear who has the more difficult mission, Obama or Rouhani.
Within this campaign of half-truths, spin, and distortions, only a few truthful
statements have been heard.
They have come from Atomic Energy Organization of Iran chief Ali Akhbar Salehi,
who formerly served as foreign minister. Salehi, who took part in the talks in
Lausanne, said that Iran could have produced a nuclear bomb in the past, but did
not want to do so. He said that Iran did not produce a bomb for religious and
ideological reasons. This is also the view held by most senior experts in the
world. Therefore, pushing Iran’s nuclear breakout time back to a year, for a
period of more than 10 years, is an important step, even if it entails risks.
After all, how can Israel fear what will happen 10 years from now, if its
governments and public institutions cannot carry out plans for more than a month
or two into the future?

Analysis: The risks Iran will face if
final nuclear deal fails
By REUTERS/04/09/2015
ANKARA - Failure to finalize a framework agreement between Iran and the six
major powers aimed at curbing the country's sensitive nuclear work could
profoundly destabilize the Islamic Republic, analysts and politicians say.
Iranians' hopes of ending their international isolation have risen so high since
the accord that failure to finalize it would generate levels of dismay that
could hurt the authorities, even if the West was portrayed as the guilty party,
analysts say. "Finally it is over. The isolation is over. The economic hardship
is over. (President Hassan) Rouhani kept his promises," said university student
Mina Derakhshande, who was among a cheering crowd on Friday. "Failure of the
talks will be end of the world for us Iranians. I cannot tolerate it."
Managing popular expectations will be more difficult in Iran now, said Karim
Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in
Washington. "If the deal doesn't come to fruition, most Americans won't notice,
while most Iranians will be devastated," Sadjadpour said. The tentative deal on
curbing Iran's nuclear work, reached on Thursday in Lausanne, revived hopes of
an end to sanctions in return for limits on its atomic program, opening the way
for economic reform and international recognition.
While the man who ultimately matters, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has
remained silent over the agreement, some hardline conservatives have taken off
the gloves.
The deal has heightened their anger over pragmatist Rouhani's 2013 election as
president on a pledge to improve foreign relations and revive the economy. But
politicians and analysts say Khamenei approved "any step taken" by the Iranian
nuclear negotiators, and the tension will abate if Khamenei supports the deal.
"Without the leader's approval, the Iranian team could not agree to the
framework deal in Lausanne. There is no rift among top decision-makers over the
framework agreement," said a senior Iranian official, who asked for anonymity.
The establishment groups behind Rouhani's election win -- the Revolutionary
Guards (IRGC), powerful clerics and influential politicians -- have united in
public to support the nuclear deal, which was praised by the president as a
"historic opportunity" that would benefit everyone. Speaker Ali Larijani said
parliament "supported the deal," Iran's military chief and a close ally to
Khamenei, General Hassan Firouzabadi, congratulated Khamenei on the "success" of
Iranian negotiators and thanked Rouhani for the deal and , the semi-official
Fars news agency reported. "The Iranian nation and the Revolutionary Guards
appreciate the negotiators' honest political efforts," said IRGC's top commander
Mohammad Ali Jafari said, Fars reported on Tuesday. But criticism of Rouhani has
also increased, with hardline conservatives casting the government as
insufficiently robust on the nuclear program. The critics, wary of any detente
with the West they fear would imperil the Islamic Revolution, hold influential
positions in parliament, the security forces and intelligence services.
"Iran has exchanged its saddled horse for one with a broken bridle," Fars quoted
Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the hardline Kayhan daily and an adviser to
Khamenei, as saying.

Israel needs answers to tough
questions on Iran deal
Alex Fishman/Ynetnews/Published: 04.09.15/Israel Opinion
Op-ed: Obama may be vague on the details of the final nuclear agreement being
drafted, but Israel cannot afford to be.
I'm going to sign a deal with Iran – and after me, the flood. That's what US
President Barack Obama effectively said on NPR on Tuesday.
Obama, one has to admit, was simply being honest and telling the world the truth
to its face: In 12 to 15 years, when the deal expires and Iran is free of rigid
international supervision, its nuclear weapon breakout time will be next to
nothing. The subsequent attempts by the White House to explain that the
president was misunderstood are all nonsense. The president was not talking to
Israel, but to the American people and, primarily, the Senate. Benjamin
Netanyahu doesn't concern him. He despises him, has nothing but disdain for him,
and makes no effort to hide his feelings. The entire American PR machine, with
the president leading the way, is focused now on the House of Representatives on
Capitol Hill. That is where the real battle will take place. There appears to be
a majority in the Senate that won't allow the administration to fast-track the
lifting of the sanctions. Furthermore, if it turns out that the Iranians'
understanding of the deal differs from that of the US lawmakers, the latter will
be a lot more determined to expand and intensify the sanctions against Iran.
There is already talk on Capitol Hill that if the UN Security Council lifts the
sanctions on Iran and the European Union frees itself of the regime of
sanctions, Congress will have no choice but to tighten the American-imposed
restrictions on Iran. Obama and his people, therefore, are not addressing Israel
at this stage; their statements are for American ears. And that's an audience
they can't afford to lie to.
So what did Obama actually say on Tuesday? Firstly, his words seemed to indicate
that the sides have yet to reach an agreement on how long Iran will be subjected
to tight international supervision. Secondly, Obama spoke about new centrifuges
that Iran will continue to develop – seemingly in contradiction to the
understandings that are supposed to prevent them from conducting research and
development in this field; and these new centrifuges would propel Iran to the
status of a nuclear threshold state.
It's strange: A detailed agreement has yet to be formulated, yet Obama already
knows that the Iranians will have new centrifuges that will allow them to
produce a bomb almost immediately.
Everyone is talking about tight supervision and inspections; what remains
unclear, however, is how to ensure that the deal slated for signing in June will
indeed include draconian inspection measures, anytime and anywhere along the
production chain – from the uranium mines and through to the enriched material.
The United States' capabilities when it comes to nuclear arms control are
outstanding. The means at their disposal – from mobile laboratories and sensors
to satellite imagery and an entire host of additional exotic resources developed
at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico – afford effective
inspections in theory. The problem is that the Iranians have already announced
that they are not willing, for example, to allow cameras into their facilities.
This falls precisely in line with statements made on Tuesday by the head of the
Iranian Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Akbar Salehi: If Iran wanted to obtain a
nuclear bomb, he said, it had the ability to do so right now. As far as the West
knows, Salehi was exaggerating slightly; but he probably wasn't that far from
the truth. More evidence that the supervision issue is the Achilles' heel of the
agreement.
On the sidelines of the agreement, meanwhile, it is interesting to review the
minutes of meetings convened by Netanyahu and then defense minister Ehud Barak
in 2010 and 2011, and ask a few tough questions: Was it a mistake not to have
attacked the Iranian nuclear facilities when it was still possible? Why did
professionals among the defense establishment make every effort to thwart the
option of a military operation?
And, given the deal in the works, can one say today that they were wrong?
The Israeli government cannot simply sweep these questions under the rug. If the
final agreement with Iran takes shape in keeping with the guidelines achieved in
Lausanne, these questions will again become relevant – after all, Israel will
then be left to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat on its own.

Iran will only sign nuclear deal if sanctions lifted “same
day': Rouhani
Asharq Al-Awsat
Thursday, 9 Apr, 2015
Ankara, Reuters—Iran will only sign a final nuclear accord with six world powers
if all sanctions imposed over its disputed atomic work are lifted on the same
day, President Hassan Rouhani said in a televised speech on Thursday. Iran and
the powers reached a tentative agreement last week in the Swiss city of Lausanne
aimed at restricting Tehran’s nuclear program in return for removing the
economic penalties. All sides are working toward a June 30 deadline for a final
deal on the nuclear work, which Western powers fear is aimed at developing an
atomic bomb but Tehran says is purely peaceful. “We will not sign any deal
unless all sanctions are lifted on the same day … We want a win-win deal for all
parties involved in the nuclear talks,” Rouhani said. Since the preliminary
agreement was reached, Iran and the United States seem to have different
interpretations over some issues, including the pace and extent of sanctions
removal. “Our goal in the talks (with major powers) is to preserve our nation’s
nuclear rights. We want an outcome that will be in everyone’s benefit,” Rouhani
said in a ceremony to mark Iran’s National Day of Nuclear Technology.
“The Iranian nation has been and will be the victor in the negotiations.” Iran
insists all nuclear-related United Nations resolutions, as well as US and EU
nuclear-related economic sanctions, will be lifted immediately once a final
accord is signed. But the United States said on Monday that sanctions would have
to be phased out gradually under the comprehensive nuclear pact. The US and EU
sanctions have choked off nearly 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) of Iranian
exports since early 2012, reducing its oil exports by 60 percent to around 1
million barrels a day. “Our main gain in the talks was the fact that U.S.
President Barack Obama acknowledged that Iranians will not surrender to
bullying, sanctions and threats,” Rouhani said. “It is a triumph for Iran that
the first military power in the world has admitted Iranians will not bow to
pressure.”Negotiators from Iran, the United States, Germany, France, Britain,
Russia and China will resume negotiations in the coming days to pave the way for
the final deal.

Canada launches its first anti-ISIS
airstrikes in Syria
By Staff writer | Al Arabiya News/Thursday, 9 April 2015
Canada conducted its first air strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and
Syria (ISIS) militants on Wednesday, expanding its role in the U.S. coalition
against the militant group in Syria. Two F-18 fighters targeted former Syrian
military buildings that had been taken over by ISIS near the northern city of
Raqa, the Globe and Mail newspaper reported. The strikes were carried out with a
group of 10 aircraft, including six U.S. planes. The warplanes also used
precision-guided munitions before safely returning to base, the Canadian
military said.
Canadian strikes had been limited to Iraqi territory, but at the end of March
Canadian lawmakers narrowly passed a measure to allow the country’s aircraft to
target ISIS targets in Syria. Opposition lawmakers argued Canada should not
deepen its involvement in the long-running and complex war. Canada first joined
the anti-ISIS coalition in November and it has also deployed about 70 special
forces troops to train Kurds to fight ISIS in northern Iraq. Despite a sustained
air campaign and ground advances in Iraq, the radical group still holds large
swaths of territory straddling Syria and Iraq.

Could Saudi Arabia’s relationship with
Egypt be under threat?
Abdulrahman al-Rashed/Al Arabiya
Thursday, 9 April 2015
New F-15 warplanes, Harpoon missiles and M1 tanks are being shipped to Egypt’s
armed forces, who are engaged in a difficult fight against extremist groups in
the Sinai Peninsula and are also protecting borders with Libya, the second
front. But why does the U.S. suddenly seem to love President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi’s
administration?
The reason is that Washington has retreated from its decision to punish the
Egyptian authorities for toppling the Muslim Brotherhood. U.S. President Barack
Obama has since contacted his Egyptian counterpart to reconcile and inform him
of the decision to resume delivering military and economic aid - a policy in
place since the era of former Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat which Washington
froze in late 2013.
The chapter of Muslim Brotherhood rule - from 2012 to mid-2013 – has completely
ended in the international arena. However, it continues on the virtual world of
social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook.
After the Muslim Brotherhood lost U.S. support of its “legitimacy,” it began to
sabotage Egyptian-Arab relations and spread stories and interpretations on the
apparent absence of Egyptian forces fighting alongside their ally Saudi Arabia
in the kingdom-led coalition against Houthi militias in Yemen, with the rest of
Saudi’s coalition partners saying the relations between the two countries have
relapsed.
Years ago, the world was divided into two camps where each party mostly handled
a war on the side of their ally and whoever was outside the alliance ended up
being easy bait
This supposition ignores the activity of Egypt’s navy south of the Red Sea. It
also ignores what’s more important: the strategic relations between the two
countries have actually become more solid and in this current era of chaos which
our region hadn’t seen before now, both parties greatly value this partnership.
Precious ties
Therefore, we can understand how precious bilateral ties are and how they cannot
be given up just because a few journalists have an opposite opinion or because
there are some among the opposition who want sabotage relations.
The region needs a balance which is not easily shaken by differences, rumors or
voices of another agenda. As long as the vision regarding the nature of the
threats is clear, collective relations will be deepen and will be better able to
confront differences and whatever rivals may incite. It’s normal that in this
diplomatic jungle around us, the best guard for the region’s countries are their
interrelations and alliances to confront the threat of being singled out and
weakened by the wolves both outside and in.
Without solid relations, these countries can easily fall prey, one after the
other. Egypt is a big country and even Egypt needs regional relations that can
assist the level of threats posed on it - threats like those posed on Saudi
Arabia, which was dragged into its first war in a quarter of a century.
The situation today is more difficult than before. Years ago, the world was
divided into two camps where each party mostly handled a war on the side of
their ally and whoever was outside the alliance ended up being easy bait. But
today, the chances of counting on pledges from foreign camps have become limited
and there are no alternatives to them other than building a regional network of
alliances to balance the terror around.
Clear aims
By building relations with clear aims and commitments, we can later go to the
table of negotiations which the U.S. suggests we go to in order to reach
regional understanding.
However it’s not possible to sit and negotiate with a party when its gun is laid
on the table and when they are - quite frankly - involved in destroying the
region. Iran and its allies have spread terror that has reached southern Syria,
not far from Jordan’s borders.
Meanwhile, Iranian-backed Houthi militias have taken over two neighborhoods in
the Yemeni city of Aden.
Iraqi militias - who are also supported by Iran - stirred up a battle near the
Kuwaiti border a month ago. Egypt, as I said at the beginning, is fighting using
heavy weapons in Sinai against the so-called “emirate of Sinai,” and Egypt may
find itself forced into direct military action in Libya due to the establishment
of terrorist statelets.
Politicians don’t need us to remind them about the situation of a massive
regional war and its threats - as they live through them every day. But there
might be a need to remind them of the importance of teamwork and building an
alliance which outweighs the calculations of regional and foreign powers.

Radicalism, not sectarianism, is the
threat in Yemen
Manuel Almeida/Al Arabiya
Thursday, 9 April 2015
The message that the Yemeni conflict has little to do with the kind of sectarian
violence that plagues Iraq and Syria has been circulating with increasing
intensity in mainstream and social media. In many ways, the message is correct.
Instead, it is radicalism that threatens to disintegrate Yemen.
Sectarian violence has been largely absent from the country throughout its
history. The roots of the current conflict, essentially a struggle for power,
lie in years of misgovernment, corruption and marginalization of various groups.
Although the alliance between former President Ali Abdullah Saleh and the Houthi
militias’ leadership is one between the Shiite Zaidi sect, it is defined by both
sides’ opportunism and not by religious proximity or a determination to fight
Sunnis from the Shafi school of thought.
A good example is that the Ahmars, the Zaidi family who headed the powerful
Hashid tribal confederation and the Muslim Brotherhood-oriented Yemeni
Congregation for Reform (or al-Islah), became one of their common enemies.
The same goes for the Saudi government’s concerns regarding Yemen. Historically,
Saudi Arabia has not looked at Yemen through a sectarian prism. Whenever things
got more complicated south of the border, the Saudis have sided with those who
could offer a working relationship and minimum guarantees of security and
stability.
Historically, Saudi Arabia has not looked at Yemen through a sectarian prism
This is what happened in the 1960s when the Saudis backed the royalist forces
after the coup against the last Zaidi Imam Muhammad al-Badr, facing the
republicans who received massive military support from the Egyptian forces of
Gamal Abdel Nasser.
National security
And today, it is not sectarianism that drives the Saudis and the other Gulf
states participating in operation Decisive Storm against Houthi military
positions and arms and missile depots. Especially for the Saudis, this is as
much about responding to the request for assistance from Abdrabbu Mansour Hadi’s
government as it is about their own national security.
All those journalists and experts who reject the sectarian dimension of this
conflict point out that Zaidism is doctrinally or theologically closer to
Sunnism than it is to Twelver Shiism dominant in Iran. They are right, but they
miss a few important details: there are various Zaidi schools and the one the
Houthi leadership follows is much closer to Twelver Shiism.
Yet the big problem is not so much the feverous religious beliefs of Houthi
leadership but their determination, clearly inspired in Iran and instrumentally
explored by radical factions in Tehran, to press forward their own armed
insurrection regardless of the consequences.
Since Houthi overthrew Hadi and his government, posters of the movement’s
leaders side by side with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and
Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah became a common sight in Sanaa. Posters of the
Houthi chief Abdul Malik al-Houthi with the motto “The revolution continues”
have also been sighted in Tehran.
Nevertheless, the Saudi concerns are not primarily about the ideological
affinity between the Houthis and Iran. Instead, they are grounded on a very real
threat that derives from that relationship.
Earlier this week, I had the chance to sit with Saudi Brig. Gen. Ahmed Asiri,
the spokesman of the Saudi-led coalition forces. He confirmed the existence of
video and photo evidence of Houthi attempts to build missile sites close to the
Saudi border, with the help of “foreign consultants.”
Asiri said that the military support from Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah came in
the form of conventional weapons, missiles and communication systems, as well as
training that took place in northern Yemen. This support has been going on for
years, probably since the first of six wars between Houthi and the forces loyal
to Saleh began in 2004.
He also ironized about the memorandum of understanding that the Houthis recently
signed with Tehran regarding 14 to 28 weekly flights to be operated between
Sanaa and the Iranian capital, asking whether people expected these flights
would carry tourists. Asiri expressed his surprise about the skepticism revealed
by other countries regarding the news of the unloading of tons of weapons and
military equipment from Iranian ships, which happened last month in the port of
al-Saleef on Yemen’s West coast.
The increasing radicalism and violence of the Houthi campaign, which worsened as
its militias pressed south, should worry the international community. The
movement has rejected numerous approaches for dialogue while torturing people,
killing unarmed demonstrators and intentionally hitting civilian areas in Aden
with heavy weapons.
It is tempting to believe the argument put forward by many U.S. regional experts
that a nuclear deal with Iran could have a positive impact in easing tensions
and addressing the various regional crises. It is also tempting to trust it
would empower moderate factions in Tehran, more willing to respect the
sovereignty of regional states and stop exporting its revolution. But will then
be too late for an all-inclusive political solution in Yemen?
On a recent trip, a Yemeni contact told me about his efforts to convince one of
his family members (like him, a Zaidi), not to the join the Houthis. Those
attempts, based on the argument that their radicalism has little positives to
offer, were fruitless. In his response before the Saudi-led military operation
began, one of his family members boasted about the Houthi’s presence in Aden and
said the movement would soon reach Riyadh.

April 13, 1975: A tragedy to remember
Hiba Huneini| The Daily Star/Apr. 09, 2015
Forty years ago on April 13, 1975, the Civil War broke out to push Lebanon, the
most stable democratic state in the Arab World at that time, into a vicious
circle of internal battles. It erupted due to internal and external factors, and
was ended by an accord of national agreement, under the patronage of martyr
Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, Arab auspices and international support in the town
of Taif, Saudi Arabia. This agreement constituted a specific historical juncture
that paved the way to the new phase of stability and prosperity in the
country.Decades have passed after the end of the war, nevertheless, its effects
on the Lebanese people can still be touched. It has become part of the social
narrative even among the new generation that did not experience its warfare. The
effects that the war had on the psychology, fabric, form and function of the
Lebanese society are key factors toward understanding its current situation and
determining the kind of social choices it needs to take in the future.
The war had a detrimental impact on our social fabric. It resulted in a radical
social segregation based on sectarian divide. The hostilities’ demarcation lines
remained, until today, as geographical borders and boundaries between the
habitants of every sect making social infusion impossible. This has
automatically laid the foundation for a trajectory of social and political
polarization that’s lasting until today. This “polarized-segregation” has led to
a dangerous social setting where one feels more connected to her/his sect than
her/his country.
On the other hand, the horror of warfare has been an influential component on
our social psychology. It keeps coming up to the surface at times of tension.
Although it is a memory full of bloodshed and destruction, it has prevented us
from flaming another war. Contrary to the conventional narrative, Lebanon’s
painful experience has resulted in a country that can handle an extraordinary
amount of stress. For example, we were able to resist the Israeli aggression and
to reconstruct our country.
We also managed to absorb the spillovers of the regional conflicts in all its
different forms and to resist any effort done to import them into our territory.
Nevertheless, we continued to keep our human and moral stances by hosting an
incredible number of refugees to find shelter, hospitality and share the limited
resources of our small country.
Now, the question is, in the memory of the Civil War, what needs to be done to
remove violence from the menu of options for any emerging internal conflict?
There is an action-oriented and multidimensional answer to this question. But
before answering, one should understand that the notion of a conflict-free
society is a naive one. Societies do have internal conflicts often if not all
the time, what matters is the magnitude these conflicts on citizens’ livelihood
and the conflict resolution tools. Modern, democratic and civilized nations
should not consider violence as an option for conflict settlement and do not
compromise their citizens’ welfare for warfare. Therefore, the answer of the
above question is basically rooted into the restoration of civil-democratic
state, good governance and a reconciliation process.
First, reconciliation is where it all starts. It is a nonlinear over-arching
process to transform the people’s divided past to a shared future. Truth-seeking
and justice are the interrelated ingredients in any reconciliatory process to
heal our wounds and rebuild trust. However, in a sectarian society like the
Lebanese one, this reconciliatory process is easier said than done.
It implies a lot of rational choices from the sectarian and political leaders
based on a collective decision to invest in our common future not in our divided
past. It requires a decision that is based on hope, not fear. Second, in order
for Lebanon to stabilize and prosper, true democracy should be restored on the
basis of a civil state that does not allow discrimination between its citizens
on any sectarian, ethnic or gender basis. Third, a coherent structure of good
governance should be put in place in order to prevent cronyism and rent-seeking.
This is supposed to return efficiency back to the state institutions, and hence,
restore people’s trust, renew its legitimacy and make it able to deliver.
In conclusion, it is mind-blowing how Lebanon needs to remember its painful
history as much as it needs to forget it. We need to actively engage with our
mistakes, think forward and be driven by hope not fear, as Martin Luther King
said, “those who do not learn to live together as brothers are all going to
perish together as fools.”
**Hiba Huneini is acting manager of the Youth & Civic Engagement Program at the
Hariri Foundation for Sustainable Human Development.

Lebanon’s Civil War, 40 years on
Michael Young/The Daily Star/Apr. 09, 2015
In a book on life in Syrian prisons, where he spent 16 years, the Syrian
intellectual Yassin al-Haj Saleh wrote that it was not rare to feel nostalgia
for one’s years of incarceration.
Without minimizing the brutalities and humiliations of prison life, Haj Saleh
explained that the reason for this nostalgia was that “he who endures this
sacrificial rite accedes to something extremely precious, which rarely appears
twice in one’s existence: a new departure, a resurrection, a second birth, a
mandate to reinitiate life.” To him, the prison experience gave structure to his
existence at a time of confusion and despair.
In many respects the war in Lebanon, which began 40 years ago next week, on
April 13, provokes many of the same paradoxical reactions. To an unknowing
observer, the sheer horror of the 15-year conflict that destroyed and
transformed the country cannot in any way invite nostalgia. And yet for many of
those who lived through the war’s permutations, it also provided an enthralling
occasion to be reborn, to seek new departures and it provided a structure and
meaning to the lives of those who survived.
There has been a cliché circulating since the war ended in 1990 that the
Lebanese have developed amnesia toward it. However, put together any group of
Lebanese over the age of 30, mention the war, and you will see that the reality
is precisely the contrary. Indeed, a factor that has calmed political ardors in
the past decade is the recollection, and fear, of what war brought us.
Lebanon’s conflict pales in comparison with the unadulterated savagery of the
one in Syria – and that’s saying something because what took place in Lebanon
was once regarded as a benchmark for the potential barbarism of sectarian hatred
and state decomposition. The word “Lebanonization” is still used these days, but
it is almost beginning to sound quaint in light of the merciless slaughter in
other parts of the Middle East.
What does one remember in a war like Lebanon’s? The friends lost, certainly. The
ultimate foolishness of partisanship and unbending political conviction as
alliances and beliefs were altered in light of changing circumstances. The
terrible price a country can pay for losing a generation or more to emigration.
But also the enjoyment felt when the nightmare was over, when streets were no
longer borders and when one finally woke up to grasp, and abandon, the countless
lies sustaining the war. Often, after killing there is tolerance, and management
of such tolerance is one of the most difficult of postwar legacies to negotiate.
This anniversary gains in meaning from the fact that the roles have been
reversed since 1975. Whereas then Lebanon was a rare country at war in a region
characterized by cataleptic stability, today it seems to be a country that, for
all its trials and the proximity of chaos, yet has avoided the worst. Let’s hope
this lasts amid the maneuvers of those who refuse to isolate Lebanon from the
region’s enmities, thereby threatening the country.
Nor does the Christian-Muslim divide have the meaning it once did. Lebanon’s
Christians at present are a minority in a country defined largely by
Sunni-Shiite relations, at a time when Christians in the region face existential
challenges. Wars throughout the region, beginning in Lebanon, started the
process of Christian flight. In a matter of decades, two of the Arab world’s
ancient communities, the Jews and Christians of myriad denominations, became
increasingly less a part of the Arab landscape. What was once an area of
religious and ethnic diversity is drifting into drab, necrotic sectarian
uniformity as animosities gain ground and homogeneous territories follow.
In that sense Lebanon, 40 years after the start of its war, has something to
offer. The country may be riven by mutual antipathies, and no one should have
too many illusions about the Lebanese being intense missionaries of coexistence.
But the reflexes of coexistence are a different matter. The Lebanese are
well-versed in the language and games of compromise. Ours can often be a violent
country, but years of war only brought home to those who lived through the
conflict the merits of having a social contract like the often-maligned National
Pact.
For all its rigidities and shortcomings, the National Pact outlined a system
based on the principle of compromise, even as it recognized and adapted to
Lebanon’s sectarian and confessional differences. Rather than artificially
camouflage this under a tarpaulin of bogus Arab nationalism, the Lebanese sought
to address their pluralism and manage it through a commonly agreed arrangement.
This could not prevent the war in 1975, but perhaps it was responsible for
ensuring that it did not break Lebanon up irrevocably, despite the attractions
of partition among some of the wartime political leaders.
The same cannot be said of Syria or Iraq, both of which are being undone, quite
literally, by the centrifugal forces that have been released in their societies.
It seems difficult to imagine that Syria will ever be one again, while Iraq will
at best survive in the context a political system that ensures a very loose
confederation. The greater the nationalist myths, evidently, the harder the
fall. Lebanon is not out of the woods, and war not out of our thoughts and
anxieties. But I recall some Syrians quoted in newspapers following the imposed
departure of their army from Lebanon in April 2005: “The Lebanese will soon eat
themselves,” was a notable comment. It was a shameful, bitter thing to say, and
without an ounce of schadenfreude one can reply that it’s always better not to
tempt fate. We began learning that lesson four decades ago, and it’s a pity that
much of the Arab world, depraved and degraded, is only starting to learn it
today.
**Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR. He tweets @BeirutCalling.

After the Iran deal, Obama can start
worrying
David Ignatius/The Daily Star/ Apr. 09, 2015
There’s a buoyant sense at the White House this week – a feeling that a
much-embattled President Barack Obama has achieved the goal he set in January
2009 of engaging Iran on the basis of “mutual interest and mutual respect.” But
like the dog who catches the car he’s been chasing, Obama must now worry about
what to do next. The first priority is pinning down the deal that Secretary of
State John Kerry reached last week so that it’s not a fuzzy framework, but an
actual, enforceable agreement. There are many details left to clarify, and U.S.
officials aren’t yet sure they actually have clinched the deal that they
appeared to have won. Problem areas include limits on Iranian research and
development of advanced centrifuges buried underground at Fordow; the mechanism
for removing sanctions and then reimposing them if Iran is thought to be
cheating; and the procedures for inspecting supposedly “nonnuclear” sites where
covert research might be taking place.
These are big holes in the framework. Its unfinished nature is a sign that the
administration wants the final pact so much that it will offer compromises that
allow the Iranians to save face, even at modest cost to U.S. interests. The
administration’s goal, over the next three months, appears to be gaining the
best final accord possible – that the Iranians can also sell back home. Obama’s
comfort level has been boosted by the presence at the negotiating table of
Energy Secretary Ernie Moniz, one of the world’s top nuclear physicists. Moniz
can signal compromises that, while appearing generous, have little practical
consequence, for technical reasons. Obama’s outreach to Iran has been shaped
from the beginning by his effort to understand how Iranians see the world – and
to distinguish between truly dangerous, aggressive actions and more
comprehensible defensive moves. This empathetic view is part of what irks
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But centuries of diplomatic history
suggest that such an ability to see the world through the adversary’s eyes is
essential for effective negotiation. If there has been a surprise in the Iranian
negotiating style, it’s that they have adhered so closely to the terms of the
initial framework reached in November 2013, rather than cheating at the edges.
President Hassan Rouhani sought to underline this theme of trustworthiness
(contrary to what the Israelis and many Arabs see in Iran) when he said last
Friday: “If the other side honors its promises, we will honor our promises.”
Obama rejects the case made by Netanyahu and congressional critics that if the
United States just keeps squeezing, the Iranians will capitulate. The White
House thinks too much pressure could backfire. U.S. officials agree that Supreme
Leader Ali Khamenei’s ultimate goal is regime survival, but officials saw the
crowds in the streets of Tehran last week cheering the deal as a check on
Khamenei and other hard-liners. The most delicate test ahead may involve, not
the Iranians, but Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf States. Obama knows that
the metastatic danger for the Middle East is a post-agreement scramble by Iran’s
Sunni rivals, such as the Saudis, Egyptians, Emiratis and Turks – to achieve
their own versions of the Iranian “threshold nuclear capability” envisioned in
the agreement.
The White House is still mulling the details, but officials are contemplating a
kind of “dual engagement” approach. Even as it negotiates with Iran, the
administration might extend security guarantees to the Gulf States, pledging to
come to their defense if attacked by external powers. (Tricky question: Would
that include a strike from Israel?) In exchange, the Gulf states hopefully would
agree to forgo or limit their nuclear programs, keeping some lid on
proliferation in the region.
Obama’s challenge is that the Sunni nations have been suffering a kind of
vertigo since the Arab revolutions of 2011, doubting themselves and the United
States even as they reel from Iran’s proxy wars. Somehow these Sunni nations
need to find the will to push back, so that there could eventually be a security
balance between Iran and its neighbors. Because Obama understands the need for
this pushback, he has supported the Saudi assault on Yemen, and might even
endorse a Turkish military move into northern Syria.
Dealing with Congress will be its own special nightmare, as always for this
administration. Obama needs a formula that allows members to reassure Netanyahu
of their toughness, while keeping what many see as a pretty good Iran deal – and
accepting that it’s the president, not Congress, who conducts foreign policy.
**David Ignatius is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR.

Easter under Islam, Churches under Attack
Raymond Ibrahim
April 9, 2015 8:26 am
christian-church-burned-1As millions of Christians around the world were
celebrating Easter Sunday, the Christians of the Muslim world were again under
attack. The April 2 Islamic jihad attack on a Kenyan school—where the Islamic
murderers made sure to slaughter only Christian students, sparing fellow
Muslims—was only the most spectacular attack. On Easter Sunday itself, as some
media reported, the Islamic State destroyed the Virgin Mary Church in Tel Nasri—loosely
translated as “Christian Hill”—in northeast Syria.
Even lesser known is that other churches and Christians in the Middle East were
attacked during Easter weekend. Take Egypt. President Sisi recently decreed that
a Christian church should be built in the Upper Egyptian town of al-Our, where
13 of the 21 Christians who were gruesomely beheaded by the Islamic State in
Libya grew up, and where their families still live. The church was meant to
honor them and the nation of Egypt.On Easter Sunday itself, as some media
reported, the Islamic State destroyed the Virgin Mary Church in Tel Nasri—loosely
translated as “Christian Hill”—in northeast Syria.
But, as always happens in Egypt—that is, as always happens in practically every
Islamic nation in the world—local Muslims rioted and protested right after
Islamic prayers last Friday. They yelled that they would never allow a church to
be built, that “Egypt is Islamic!” and that “Anyway, shape, or form, we will
take Sisi down!”By night time, Molotov cocktails and stones were thrown at
another Coptic church, cars were set ablaze—including one belonging to a
relative of one of the those decapitated by the Islamic State—and several people
were injured. A day later, on Saturday, April 4, Muslims rioted and attacked the
Christians of the village of Gala’, Samalout district. After waiting for years
to repair their dilapidated church (also named after Virgin Mary, see pictures
here) Coptic locals finally received all the proper permits to begin
restoration. And, as usual, Muslim mayhem broke out.
To calm matters, local police invited the Muslim leaders who refused to see the
old church building renovated to a meeting with the Christians. The Muslims
insisted that the Copts must first accept a number of discriminatory
restrictions, including that the building look like a house not a
church—certainly no crosses visible anywhere on the building’s exterior—and its
entrance must be a narrow side door, not at the front of the building which
faces the street.
Although initial reports said some compromise was formally reached, “Muslim
youth” still responded with violence, attacking Coptic homes, businesses, and
persons, often by hurling stones. Christian owned wheat farms were destroyed and
their potato crops uprooted. Islamic slogans were constantly yelled, including
“There is no god but Allah” and “Islamic! Islamic!”—a reflection of the paranoid
sentiment that if a single church is built or merely renovated, Egypt will cease
to be Islamic.
As many Copts have pointed out, they have done everything legally, getting all
the necessary permits—and in the instance of the al-Our church, President Sisi
himself has approved it—so if Muslim protesters get their way every time, it
suggests something else other than Egypt’s government is ruling Egypt.
Indeed, not only did local police, according to human rights activists and eye
witnesses, fail to respond to the Muslim assailants, some reportedly joined in
on the attack on Copts, including by throwing bricks at a vehicle carrying
Christian girls. Often we are told that it is a tiny minority of terrorists—the
Islamic State, Boko Haram, al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab, ad nauseum—who have “hijacked”
Islam for their political goals. But what do we make of these “everyday”
Muslims?Indeed, not only did local police, according to human rights activists
and eye witnesses, fail to respond to the Muslim assailants, some reportedly
joined in on the attack on Copts, including by throwing bricks at a vehicle
carrying Christian girls. The mainstream media and White House brushed aside the
Islamic State’s ritual beheading of 21 Coptic Christians by portraying it as a
“criminal” act and not mentioning that the Copts were slaughtered simply for
being Christian, as the Islamic State emphatically insisted. Instead, the White
House condemned the killing of “Egyptian Citizens.”
So what about these other angry Muslims in Egypt? They are of the same
nationality and culture as the Copts—they are not Libyans, nor are they
“ISIS”—they speak the same exact dialect. Some knew the Copts who were beheaded;
some still know their mourning families. But to have a church honoring those
slaughtered Christians is unacceptable, and prompts more attacks on Christians,
including, as seen, on family members of those beheaded in Libya.
The reason for this animus is, of course, as simple to understand as it is taboo
to mention in “polite society”: Islamic law makes unequivocally clear that
churches must never be built or even renovated. As relics of a conquered people,
churches must go the way of the dodo, one way or another. And that’s the point.
Violence and intolerance against non-Muslims is not limited to “terrorist”
organizations like the Islamic State. It’s a product of Islam’s core teachings
as found in the Koran and Sunna, or example, of Muhammad. Even the
aforementioned stipulations for the Samalout church to have no crosses, narrow
side door, etc., are a product of Islamic documents, in this case, “The
Conditions of Omar.”This hostility for and persecution of Christians is of
course evident among “terrorist” organizations like the Islamic State, Boko
Haram, etc. But it’s also evident among Muslim governments, Muslim police, and
the Muslim populace. The reason is that it’s evident in Islam. We can continue
playing games, euphemizing, white washing, invoking “grievances,” and so on, but
in the end, it is the Koran, it is Muhammad, it is Sharia—in a word, it is
Islam. And it is a testimony to the blindness of the West that a thing so
self-evident, so obvious, so well-documented—for nearly 1,400 years—is still,
nonetheless, so difficult to acknowledge.